Bob Wyman wrote:
Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
spam = "any email that does not have consent from the receiver"
I don't think so...
It may be hard to define "spam" but that doesn't mean that we
....
For instance, a message from an ex-boy/girlfriend might be
unwanted but wouldn't normally pass the "smell test" for what is spam.
......
It would be convenient if we had a nice, tight, broadly accepted
definition of spam. However, I think we need to give up on even trying
Why don't make it easy and go back to the definition used when the
Green Card-lawyers and Spamford started it.
Commercial mail from senders you have had no contact with = spam
Commercial mail from senders you have had contact with = e-ads (does not
mean you want it)
Commercial mail from senders you have had contact with, expected = legal
Non-commercial mail from senders you have had no contact with, without a
purpose = DDoS
Non-commercial mail from senders you have had no contact with a purpose =
legal
Non-commercial mail from senders you have had contact with, but don't want
have from = just annoying
Remember also that commercial do not mean it originate from a legal entity.
By narrowing the definition, it get's easier to handle and to find a base
line
from where we can go further. Reason for the classification, is that I never
seen a spam, that doesn't seem to have a (real or bogus) commercial
message in it. Even those labeled as DDoS seem to have, though illegible,
but still a form for commercial message. And we're back to the issue of the
content and what is "relevant" of it.
Kurt Magnusson
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg